My favorite viral video of the week turns out to be a dirty fake

Who knew that eagles don't really snatch babies from public parks?

As the conscientious parent of an infant, I do my part to keep the little guy safe—but no one ever warned me about the danger of eagle attacks. I mean, sure, maybe a dingo could eat your baby, but an eagle snatching him from the ground and flying away? Absurd.

But then came last night's spectacular YouTube video, now seen by more than five million people, showing just such an eagle attack in a Montreal park. The bird swoops in, snatches the baby only feet away from his own father, and lifts him into the air several feet before dropping him back to earth. The camera operators may have been following the eagle's flight, but they rush in shaky-camera style to make sure the child is fine. The video then shows the eagle snatch again in slow frame-by-frame as music from Chariots of Fire swells underneath.

OK, seems a bit dubious—who was the last person you know of to be carried off by an eagle who wasn't a dwarf, a hobbit, or a wizard? But there it was onscreen, and it looked pretty damn convincing. I showed my wife.

Eagle snatching a child.

But, of course, it's not real. Today, the Quebec-based National Animation and Design Centre (Centre NAD) admitted in a press release the video had been produced by four of its students: Normand Archambault, Loïc Mireault, Antoine Seigle, and Félix Marquis-Poulin. The eagle and the infant were both products of 3D animation and the video had originated in a class of theirs, "Atelier de simulation de production." The school crowed about how many people had seen the video.

The goal was to produce a video that met "industry production and quality standards while developing team work skills." While the video was good enough to pass muster with casual viewers, viral video watchers have picked it apart, focusing on the slightly inconsistent shadows and other minor defects. Not that all watchers wanted their illusions ripped to shreds. As one YouTube commenter put it, "Are you fucking kidding me? Can't we just enjoy the video? Like seriously, I feel like this is the goal of some 'I'm going to prove this video fake' YouTube organization to ruin the videos all across the Internet. I can't even picture what's going on through your mind."

(While this might look like the atypical intelligent YouTube comment, someone preceded it by mere seconds, asserting that "the person who posted this is a jack ass and a manipulator of consciousness....he knows how to influence this bird and used this power to make it attack the child—because this eagle is escaping his power.")

In any event, when it comes to child safety advice, what the Internet takes away with one hand it gives back with the other. Case in point: this early 1900s flyer on baby rearing highlighted yesterday on Boing Boing. It is simply too awesome to be fake—that, at least, is what I'm telling myself.

Wait- are you saying crating your infant ISN'T a good idea? I mean, they show him under a tree so he has shade-what could possibly be wrong with that? And being free from anxiety is every mother's dream! With this solution he gets fresh air and I can drink bourbon til it gets dark.

Oh wait, Kansas. I bet I know which lab this parenting technique was tested in (speaking of video fakery).

But but but there's a very famous pub called the Eagle and Child in oxford so it must have some truth to the legend. Unless you're saying it's all just a big fantasy story. Someonr must have a inkling whether that's the case....

But but but there's a very famous pub called the Eagle and Child in oxford so it must have some truth to the legend. Unless you're saying it's all just a big fantasy story. Someonr must have a inkling whether that's the case....

My problem with the video was simple - eagles don't pick up their prey in a fashion that leaves "the child unharmed". I have seen two small dogs and a cat after being dropped by eagles. The claws would have shredded right through the clothes and bruised the heck out of that kid even if they hadn't broken the skin. The would also not grab it like it was hanging in a swing. Great video though - they get an A plus on their work from me.

My problem with the video was simple - eagles don't pick up their prey in a fashion that leaves "the child unharmed".

Birds also flap their wings a lot more when trying to carry a (relatively speaking) heavy object off the ground. That's what made me deem this video a fake at a glance. The bird simply did not animate realistically.

A pity Haast's Eagle no longer exists (if you like to live dangerously). They were at least half again as large as the largest modern eagles (similar wingspan though). Unfortunately, humans cleared out their prey (moa) and habitat about 600 years ago.

A pity Haast's Eagle no longer exists (if you like to live dangerously). They were at least half again as large as the largest modern eagles (similar wingspan though). Unfortunately, humans cleared out their prey (moa) and habitat about 600 years ago.

Wait- are you saying crating your infant ISN'T a good idea? I mean, they show him under a tree so he has shade-what could possibly be wrong with that? And being free from anxiety is every mother's dream! With this solution he gets fresh air and I can drink bourbon til it gets dark.

Oh wait, Kansas. I bet I know which lab this parenting technique was tested in (speaking of video fakery).

I'm already looking for one on Amazon. I hear that if you bundle it with a length of rope, a long steel pole, and one of those toddler harnesses, you can get free shipping!

My problem with the video was simple - eagles don't pick up their prey in a fashion that leaves "the child unharmed". I have seen two small dogs and a cat after being dropped by eagles. The claws would have shredded right through the clothes and bruised the heck out of that kid even if they hadn't broken the skin. The would also not grab it like it was hanging in a swing. Great video though - they get an A plus on their work from me.

Ah, yeah, we already read the article and we know it's a fake. The people who faked it have come forward. Who are you trying to convince?

My problem with the video was simple - eagles don't pick up their prey in a fashion that leaves "the child unharmed".

Just wanted to let you know, the eagle involved is part of a gay-married eagle couple that has been trying to adopt for a long time. Interspecies adoption for non-heterosexual couples is very new and the process can take a great emotional toll on the parties involved.

Sure, people pointed out CGI flaws in the eagle-grabbing-baby video to prove its fakeness. But my proof was the way the guy said "oh shit". Didn't sound like a francophone sincerely speaking English. Too canned for such an event.Also, green and sunny wasn't Montreal's weather that day and who waits to upload such a video?

The thing I don't get is why the person holding the camera says "Hey, are the little squares audible?" in French (or something to that effect) when he runs towards the baby's 'landing point'. Does anybody know what he could be referring to? Or did I misunderstand what he said?

In fact you'll notice that the cameraman speaks French (except the first 'Oh shit') and the other guy responds in English but with a French accent.

As for the video, at first I thought it was an on-camera trick. If you pay attention to the moment when the eagle snatches the infant there's a suspicious baby-sized bag nearby.

Since after that the cameraman runs and chaos ensues he could very well be misleading us regarding the direction he's running to.

In early 2006 it was announced that the Taung Child was probably killed by an eagle or similar large predatory bird. This conclusion was reached by noting similarities in the damage to the skull and eye sockets of the Taung Child with damage to the skulls of modern primates known to have been killed by eagles.

My problem with the video was simple - eagles don't pick up their prey in a fashion that leaves "the child unharmed".

Birds also flap their wings a lot more when trying to carry a (relatively speaking) heavy object off the ground. That's what made me deem this video a fake at a glance. The bird simply did not animate realistically.

Yeah, if you've spent much time watching eagles hunt/fish, it isn't close.

The thing I don't get is why the person holding the camera says "Hey, are the little squares audible?" in French (or something to that effect) when he runs towards the baby's 'landing point'. Does anybody know what he could be referring to? Or did I misunderstand what he said?

In fact you'll notice that the cameraman speaks French (except the first 'Oh shit') and the other guy responds in English but with a French accent.

As for the video, at first I thought it was an on-camera trick. If you pay attention to the moment when the eagle snatches the infant there's a suspicious baby-sized bag nearby.

Since after that the cameraman runs and chaos ensues he could very well be misleading us regarding the direction he's running to.

The camera man asks: "Votre enfent, y'e tu correct?" -> "Is your child ok?". As for the "Oh shit" statement, As a Francophone from eastern Ontario (2 hours drive away), the French is heavely Anglisised and that could be a normal reaction for someone his age. I also don't hear any English accents in there - that is the normal French accent for the region.

As one YouTube commenter put it, "Are you fucking kidding me? Can't we just enjoy the video? Like seriously, I feel like this is the goal of some 'I'm going to prove this video fake' YouTube organization to ruin the videos all across the Internet. I can't even picture what's going on through your mind."

(While this might look like the atypical intelligent YouTube comment...

I don't get it. Are you saying people should just let videos, that purport to prove a falsehood, exist on the internet, in the name of entertainment? I've never really read comments on a YouTube video in an attempt to explain if the video is real or not. But it seems like it would be a good thing to have a debate about the validity of a video so that gullible people aren't left believing something that isn't true. I'm just not understanding why Ars would label this an "intelligent" comment.

Reminds me of the time when my kid was getting out of the toddler stage and starting to take a real interest in the world around him. We were driving through a park and he noticed there was a squirrel frolicking around so I slowed down an rolled down the window so my kid could watch per his request. About the time I came to a halt a hawk swopped down and snagged it in it's talons. All hell broke loose with squirrel writhing to break free and the hawk struggling to take off and gain altitude as it flew away through some trees. It all took place in the span of a couple seconds and was horribly cool. I'm not quite sure a better lesson on the truth of nature could have been made if I had tried. Also, the WTF face my kid had was priceless.

Wait- are you saying crating your infant ISN'T a good idea? I mean, they show him under a tree so he has shade-what could possibly be wrong with that? And being free from anxiety is every mother's dream! With this solution he gets fresh air and I can drink bourbon til it gets dark.

Oh wait, Kansas. I bet I know which lab this parenting technique was tested in (speaking of video fakery).

You do realize, of course, that those can be bought at just about any department store. They're a little more sophisticated now with steel frames and nylon screen. They're euphimistically called "play pens".

The wider sentiment of 'real or fake' seems to detract from the point of film: entertainment. Even if knowing it was fake, you got a laugh out of the idea that an eagle thought a baby made for a tasty treat, that's all that really matters as far as I'm concerned.

The wider sentiment of 'real or fake' seems to detract from the point of film: entertainment. Even if knowing it was fake, you got a laugh out of the idea that an eagle thought a baby made for a tasty treat, that's all that really matters as far as I'm concerned.

I get the entertainment value, but if you're reading the comments of the video I don't understand why real/fake isn't a valid topic. To me it would be entertaining to discuss if the video is real or fake. Now, if you're saying it's "fake" in a hateful way then that's not called for, but if that's what Ars was talking about then they weren't clear in the article.